IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY. REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.2130 OF 2010 CONNECTED WITH

Transcription

1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF JULY 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.2130 OF 2010 CONNECTED WITH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.171 OF 2011 IN R.F.A.No.2130 of 2010 BETWEEN: M/s. Kumar Park Service Station, Hare Krishna Road, Kumara Park East, Bangalore , Represented by its Partner, Mr. T.R. Sharma..APPELLANT (By Shri. K. Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate) AND: 1. M/s. S.N.S. Plaza, Registered partnership firm, having its office at 32, 33 and 34 S.N.S. Chambers, Flat No.239,

2 2 Sankey Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore Represented by its partner, Sri. Narandas Badaram, Son of Late Badaram Ahuja, Aged about 70 years, Residing at No.35, 1 st Cross, Srikantaiah Layout, Crescent Road, Bangalore Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Registered Office, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai Represented by its Managing Director / Chairman. 3. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Bangalore Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, No.29, Kalinga Rao Road, (Mission Road), Bangalore , Represented by its Chief Divisional Retail Manager....RESPONDENTS (By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H.S. Dwarakanath, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for Shri. S.V.Angadi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3)

3 3 This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated passed in O.S.No.7517/2006 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for ejectment. IN R.F.A.No.171 of 2011 BETWEEN: 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, having its registered office at No.9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Represented by its Managing Director/Chairman. 2. Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, Bangalore Divisional Office, Situated at Indian Oil Bhavan, No.29, P. Kalinga Rao Road, (Mission Road), Bangalore, by its Manager. APPELLANTS (By Shri. Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for Shri. S.V.Angadi, Advocate) AND: M/s. S.N.S.Plaza, A registered Partnership Firm having its office at No.32,33 and 34, SNS Chamber, Plot No.239, Sankey Road, Sadashivanagar,

4 4 Bangalore, Represented by its Partner, Narmadas Boadaram, Son of Badaran Ahuja, Aged about 70 years, Residing at No.34, 1 st Cross, Crescent Road, Srikant Layout, Bangalore RESPONDENT (By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Advocate for Shri. H.S.Dwarkanath, Advocate for Caveator / Respondent) ***** R.F.A.2130/2010 is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated passed in O.S.No.7517/2006 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for ejectment. R.F.A.171/2011 is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated passed in O.S.No.7517/2006 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-23), decreeing the suit for possession, mesne profits. These appeals coming on for Final Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:

5 5 JUDGMENT Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla appearing for the appellants in R.F.A.171/2011 and the learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for Respondent No.1 in both R.F.A.2130/2010 and R.F.A.171/2011. The appellant in the first of these appeals is a dealer in possession of the property, on which a filling station is being run and the appellant in the second of these appeals is the Corporation on whose behalf the outlet is being run by the appellant, in the first of these cases. The appellant in R.F.A.2130/2010 was not a party to the suit, but he is the dealer in possession of the property and had sought leave of this court to prosecute the appeal, which has been granted. In any event, the contentions taken by the appellant in R.F.A.171/2011 are reflected in the appeal filed by the dealer in R.F.A.2130/2010 and therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

6 6 2. The suit was one for ejectment and though several grounds are urged, it is evident that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and there is no warrant for interference. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla makes a fervent plea that this court may consider granting reasonable time to the appellants to re-locate the business, as it would require much preparation and effort to set up a filling station elsewhere, which the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent strongly opposes and would submit that unless such extension is granted by agreement, the court if not inclined to allow the appeal, would have no jurisdiction to grant any such extension of time. The lease having expired in the year 2005, the appellants have continued in possession by virtue of the proceedings hanging fire, over the years, and would oppose any such concession being extended. However, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to provide some reasonable time having regard to the nature of the business, to enable the appellants to quit and deliver vacant possession of

7 7 the premises and to re-locate elsewhere. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, while the appeals are dismissed as being without merit, the appellants are granted a little over one year s time from today, to quit and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises, subject to payment of the rent, which shall be paid as damages for use and occupation, at the same rate, till delivery of possession, on or before In the event of any default, the appellants would immediately lose the benefit of this extension of time. With that observation, the appeals stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE KS